Help me understand the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist.

Mountainmike · Apr 14, 2025

Just for reference - there are a variety of rons videos on video channels,
indeed also the Fox News production “ science tests faith” arranged by willesee.

There is also a video of the pair of them presenting under the same name. “ science tests faith”
again well worth watching.

Willessees book is hard to get. But well worth the read,
Rons, easier to get, and all three are worth reading, now Print on demand I think.

Ron has a site reasontobelieve.com.au
there are also book sites like abebooks and alibris can help find rarities

Be warned importing from AUS is expensive to Europe or USA

few realise that forensic science also considers the samples alive because of leucocytes that should not be there!

One of the most comprehensive books Is Serafini “ cardiologist examines Jesus” who has better presentation of maternal DNA. Whilst his science is good, I don’t like the way he is somewhat dismissive of the massive contribution of tesoriero and willesee.

It is fascinating that Islam takes the threat of Eucharistic miracles seriously! A group of Iranian hackers who broke into the websites of big US corporates and government departments, also took down the website of the church in Buenos airies where The miracles happened!

Michie · Apr 14, 2025

Radagast said:
This is only true for certain kinds of Protestants (generally the same ones that don't baptise babies).

The older Protestant denominations coming out of the Reformation, along with Catholics and the Orthodox, believe in various versions of the Real Presence, that is, that Christ is truly present in some way during the Sacrament, and that the Sacrament therefore has spiritual benefits.

Transubstantiation is a the Catholic explanation of how the Real Presence works. It uses the metapysical concept of "substance" out of Aristotle's philosophy, which makes it a little difficult to understand.

You are in the Catholic forum.

DaveHTexas · Apr 22, 2025

Gnarwhal said:
That said, as a former evangelical myself, I noticed a conceptual similarity in the evangelical idea of being born again and the Catholic teaching that the Eucharist is transubstantiated when consecrated by a priest. In the former situation, evangelicals believe that they say the sinners prayer and accept Jesus into their hearts and then from that particular moment in space and time onward, they're saved and that's it. Nothing looks different on the outside though, huh? When I said that prayer as a four year old and opened my eyes I still had blond hair, a burst blood vessel on my cheek, and crooked teeth. But what the evangelicals believe happened is an invisible internal transformation that brought me into the kingdom of God and wrote my name in the book of life so that I would be guaranteed to go to heaven when I die.

That is probably the absolutely MOST helpful explanation I have EVER come across. Thank you SO MUCH for this!

DaveHTexas · Sunday at 4:13 PM

Gnarwhal said:
I'll try to keep my comments concise just cause I'm sure everybody's already said what I'm gonna say anyway.

The first thing is, in John 6:51 specifically, Christ is very intentional about the language he uses to point out that we are/will be eating his flesh and drinking his blood when receiving Holy Communion. As bishop Baron notes, Christ uses the atypical Greek word "trogo" which has a very specific usage denoting when an animal is tearing meat apart with its teeth and gnawing at it. If Christ didn't mean that he would've used the word "phago".

God's intention has always been that Christians are meant to consume Christ's flesh and blood to remain in communion with him because it's the purest sacrifice there ever was. Just like the Hebrews would consume the flesh of a sacrificed lamb, goat, dove, or whatever other animal they had to offer the high priest. In our case, every Mass is supernaturally reaching back through space and time to the original sacrifice at Calvary when Christ died on the cross and when the host and chalice are consecrated they become the body and blood that Christ shed that same day. That's why we're specific when we say the Mass isn't a new sacrifice, it's a re-presentation of that one sacrifice 2,000 years ago on Golgotha.

Ok so now to the part about transubstantiation. That's a difficult ontological concept to wrap our heads around, I know sometimes if I start to spiral thinking about it I have to stop myself and just remind myself that God gets it, and my duty is to have faith in God and what he's divinely revealed to his Church.

That said, as a former evangelical myself, I noticed a conceptual similarity in the evangelical idea of being born again and the Catholic teaching that the Eucharist is transubstantiated when consecrated by a priest. In the former situation, evangelicals believe that they say the sinners prayer and accept Jesus into their hearts and then from that particular moment in space and time onward, they're saved and that's it. Nothing looks different on the outside though, huh? When I said that prayer as a four year old and opened my eyes I still had blond hair, a burst blood vessel on my cheek, and crooked teeth. But what the evangelicals believe happened is an invisible internal transformation that brought me into the kingdom of God and wrote my name in the book of life so that I would be guaranteed to go to heaven when I die.

If you take that idea of a transformation that was invoked by a prayer and transpose it to what the priest is doing, I think it's largely the same. The priest, acting in persona Christi (in the person of Christ himself), prays the words of consecration: "hoc est enim Corpus meum / this IS my body" , "hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei / this IS the chalice of my blood" they are immediately transformed by the Holy Spirit in their essence, meaning their true nature, but not their substance. In philosophical terms we say they transformed in their "accidents" but not their "appearance".

So I don't know if that's any more helpful than anything else that's been said, but it's a bit of a crude analogy that I thought made a little sense.

I just came back (sorry I have been painfully busy and kind of forgot about this forum), still wrestling with transsubstantiation, not getting an answer that makes any sense anywhere, even from my local priests...

This actually makes a lot more sense than anything I have come across yet.

Thank you.

DaveHTexas · Sunday at 4:16 PM

Michie said:
You are in the Catholic forum.

And they were trying to answer a protestants question about one of the differences in teaching between catholics and protestants to try to understand and bridge the divide in the church catholic and not... Isn't Christian Unity something to be reached for after all? (Catechism in a year, day 115 Fr. Mike seems to teach that IS one of the goals...)

Michie · Sunday at 5:08 PM

DaveHTexas said:
And they were trying to answer a protestants question about one of the differences in teaching between catholics and protestants to try to understand and bridge the divide in the church catholic and not... Isn't Christian Unity something to be reached for after all? (Catechism in a year, day 115 Fr. Mike seems to teach that IS one of the goals...)

Radagast is not Catholic and was not asking a question. All the congregational forums have the same rules. You’ll notice the post is no longer here and this thread dates back to April of last year. Not sure why you felt the need to post as you did at this point.

Search

Search

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Help me understand the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist.

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member

More options

Michie

Well-Known Member

More options

DaveHTexas

Active Member

More options

DaveHTexas

Active Member

More options

DaveHTexas

Active Member

More options

Michie

Well-Known Member

More options

Similar threads